defenses provide absolutely no indication of what the factual basis of those

wonder. Defendants' recitation of affirmative defenses reads, in its entirety:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

57. Defendant hereby asserts by way of affirmative defense that

it is entitled to the Safe Harbor protections and defenses provided by and found in 17 USC § 512.

4 Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 9 Filed in TXSD on 11/30/09 Page 5 of 9

58. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

the Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice provisions of 17 USC § 512.

59. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

the Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by licenses, express and/or implied, which were granted or authorized to be granted by the Plaintiff.

60. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of fair use.

61. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages.

62. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's damages, if any, are limited by Defendant's innocent intent.

63. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by copyright misuse.

64. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.

66. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver. 67. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's unclean hands.

68. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of substantial non·infringing use, to the extent the doctrine imposes the burden of proof on the Defendant with respect to showing the doctrine's applicability. In this regard, Defendant would show that it is the Plaintiff's burden to prove the inapplicability of

5 Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 9 Filed in TXSD on 11/30/09 Page 6 of 9

said doctrine.

69. Defendant further alleges by way of affirmative defense that

Plaintiff's request for statutory damages in limited in that Defendant's actions were not willful.